Slashdot Mirror

Here is the link to the study.

Then give a definition, rather than telling me mine is wrong. 99% of the jackasses who do that would argue with any definition I give, so there's no point in me wasting my time.

I get it, you are the self-appointed guardian of "toilet to tap" and argue with anyone who uses that phrase.

Here's your definition.
"Toilet to tap" programs are those in which the treated sewage is directly used as the input into the water treatment plant.
The phrase "toilet to tap" is pejorative; the intent is to make people opposed to the process of recycling water directly from the sewage treatment plants. The phrase is also used by journalists hoping to attract attention to their article.

Less disparaging terms are those like "recycled water", "water re-use", "water reclamation" and so on.

Some people consider discharging the treated water upstream to the cities water intake to be "toilet to tap", or also the process where the treated water is put into holding ponds that also serve as water intake. Those are called the same terms with the word "indirect" added, such as "indirect recycled water".

No one calls the case of upstream cities sewage (treated or untreated) being dumped into a river that downstream cities use for their water intake to be "toilet to tap". That's just traditional practice, and is called "pollution" in the case of untreated sewage.

Here is a journal article that discusses it in more detail.
http://journal.sjdm.org/14/141...

I was surprised to see that all double blind tests are now showing liberals as more racist than conservatives. The average liberal now has a default "affirmative action" position and is racist against white people. This has been confirmed over and over again in studies, one even showed that liberals are far more likely to sacrifice a white person to save multiple black people than they are the other way around. So we gave truely crossed into delusional type unlogical thinking in politics as well.

Let's see now, where's the pony inside this pile...
"Overall, Republicans are slightly more likely to assess blacks unfavorably on these dimensions. For example, 39% of Republicans place blacks on the “lazy” side of the scale, while 31% of Democrats do. But by and large, Tabarrok is quite correct: both parties include substantial fractions willing to stereotype blacks unfavorably....This graph shows that identification with the Democratic Party tends to decline, and identification with the Republican party tends to increase, as attitudes toward black become less favorable—at least when attitudes are measured with two different racial stereotypes." http://themonkeycage.org/2012/...
"We examined the relation between political ideology and racial categorization. People categorized morphed faces that ranged from 100% Black to 100% White. Conservatism (vs. liberalism) was associated with the tendency to categorize racially ambiguous faces as Black. Relation between ideology and categorization was mediated by opposition to equality. This research helps to explain the ideological underpinnings of hypodescent." http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
" in Studies 1a and 1b we found that liberals were less willing to endorse the killing of an innocent person on consequentialist grounds when the name of the individual suggested he was Black than when it suggested he was White. Study 2 demonstrated that liberals’ biased application of moral principles, when made salient in a within-subjects design, was eliminated. When given both the Chip and Tyrone scenarios, participants were strikingly consistent in their use of consequentialist or deontological principles, such that their responses on the second scenario almost always mirrored those in the first. This suggests that participants explicitly believed that the principles they were invoking were general enough to apply regardless of the victim’s race. In Study 3 we found that conservatives were more likely to condone the killing of innocent civilians in a military attack when those civilians were Iraqis killed by Americans rather than Americans killed by Iraqis, while liberals did not demonstrate such a flexible set of responses. Finally, in Study 4 we primed participants with either patriotism or multiculturalism, and found that, analogous to the effects on self-reported political ideology in Study 4, participants primed with patriotism (compared to those primed with multiculturalism) were more likely to accept collateral damage when Iraqi civilians were killed by American forces, but not when American civilians were killed by Iraqi forces." http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/j...

Psychologically, yes. The question is not, "Which would objectively be worse if it were real instead of a videogame?" If you're calling somebody a sick fuck for playing a video game, then the question is, "Which videogame experience is going to be subjectively more appealing to a sick fuck and repellent to a morally intact person?"

Ordinary, well-functioning people are more appalled by the suffering of one person than by the suffering of a mass of people, as evidenced by that famous Stalin quote ("One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic") as well as by empirical research. This is not because it's rational (it's not), it's just because of how human beings are wired and how moral sentiments work in non-sick fucks.

So I think the GP AC (a different AC from me) was claiming that the guy who enjoys a game where he can vividly and realistically rape a single individual child is more likely to be a sick fuck than the guy who enjoys designing wargame strategies where the "deaths" of symbolic avatars are used as an accounting system.

Other replies have noted that a citation requirement is difficult to enforce but that citation is also a canon of academic ethics. The journal I edit thus "asks nicely" for citation. See http://journal.sjdm.org/copyright.htm

But people's willingness to take risks in real life is domain-specific, so which domain of willingness did you mean?